Struck by Lighthttp://www.struckbylight.comFor the Art, Craft & the Science of Photographyen-GBThu, 27 Apr 2017 13:21:46 PDThttps://wordpress.org/?v=4.8.2hourly1Introduction to Lightinghttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/StruckByLight/~3/2S70aiu9AYc/LightingDinil AbeygunawardaneThu, 27 Apr 2017 13:15:54 PDThttp://www.struckbylight.com/?p=2422Look around, if you are not in absolute dark, there is light!

Now take any modern camera, put it in full auto mode and press the shutter! There’s a fair chance you’d get an image, perhaps even a decent looking one that you might feel good enough to upload to your Facebook page?

So what is this fuss about lighting, when light is so ubiquitous?

Let’s do something to figure this out. (Feel free to pull this image to your image editing software and try out what I’m suggesting here)

The image is that of a simple white egg!

Why is it an egg? Because it looks like one, isn’t it? It has a particular shape. The images depicts that for us!

Now drag it to photoshop, choose the brush tool, then click on a sample area of white for your brush to be white.

Now use the brush and paint the egg with the white you’ve sampled from the egg itself.

Do you see what happens to the shape?

Here’s the conclusion; the shape of the egg is revealed to us on a two dimensional plane by the TONAL VARIATION that is there on the two dimensional image.

The tonal variation is created by the difference in the amount of light.

Here is the same egg, with the same light source used from a very slightly different direction

Here are the two images side by side..

Notice the shadow at the tip of the egg on the left and how that shadow accentuates the shape and makes it more three dimensional..

This is what lighting is all about, controlling shadows and revealing the shape the way we want.

You HAVE to see what light does to an object before photographing it, irrespective of whether you are an outdoor (nature) photographer who uses the sun or a studio photographer who plays with artificial lights!

Over the next few articles of this series I will explain some key concepts of lighting and try to debunk some myths that are out there.

]]><p>Look around, if you are not in absolute dark, there is light! Now take any modern camera, put it in full auto mode and press the shutter! There’s a fair chance you’d get an image, perhaps even a decent looking one that you might feel good enough to upload to your Facebook page? So what <a class="read-more" href="http://www.struckbylight.com/lighting/introduction-to-lighting/">Read More</a></p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.struckbylight.com/lighting/introduction-to-lighting/">Introduction to Lighting</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.struckbylight.com">Struck by Light</a>.</p>http://www.struckbylight.com/lighting/introduction-to-lighting/feed/1http://www.struckbylight.com/lighting/introduction-to-lighting/Shooting freshly prepared foodhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/StruckByLight/~3/ERaWl1rtUY8/Food PhotographyStory of the ImageDinil AbeygunawardaneFri, 19 Feb 2016 18:24:04 PSThttp://www.struckbylight.com/?p=2334

Cinnamon Bey Beruwala

Shooting freshly prepared real food is fun; chefs are usually quite a fun bunch to work with. However, fresh food photography is different from other types of food photography. During the shoot the presentation is usually determined by the chef and rarely or by the art director depending of the job.

Getting the look and feel exactly the way your client wants can be quite challenging. Once the ‘correct’ side of the plate is identified you need to set the lights. Some foods don’t last that long until the photographer fiddles with lights and the settings. Once everything is ready and the trial shots are satisfactory some food items need to be ‘redecorated’ for the hero shot.

The above shot was made during a shoot at the Cinnamon Bey Hotel Beruwala.

The shot below was on the table of the chef when we were doing a shoot at Cinnamon Lodge at Habarana

]]><p>Shooting freshly prepared real food is fun; chefs are usually quite a fun bunch to work with. However, fresh food photography is different from other types of food photography. During the shoot the presentation is usually determined by the chef and rarely or by the art director depending of the job. Getting the look and <a class="read-more" href="http://www.struckbylight.com/image-posts/story-of-the-image/shooting-freshly-prepared-food/">Read More</a></p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.struckbylight.com/image-posts/story-of-the-image/shooting-freshly-prepared-food/">Shooting freshly prepared food</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.struckbylight.com">Struck by Light</a>.</p>http://www.struckbylight.com/image-posts/story-of-the-image/shooting-freshly-prepared-food/feed/0http://www.struckbylight.com/image-posts/story-of-the-image/shooting-freshly-prepared-food/Galle Fort, Tourists and Street Photographyhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/StruckByLight/~3/aDdQg-bJtBw/Street PhotographyDinil AbeygunawardaneWed, 04 Feb 2015 12:37:57 PSThttp://www.struckbylight.com/?p=2225

The Galle Fort, which was first built by Portuguese in 1588, then extensively fortified by the Dutch during the 17th century is a historical, archaeological and architectural world heritage monument (Source; Wikipedia). Last week 10 of us, all members of the Round Table Camera Club visited the Galle Fort for an evening of photography, fun and education.

Image courtesy of Chris & Mayu Photography

Galle Fort is still quite posh for its age. It is one of the oldest living cities in the world and attracts many tourists every year.

The day of our visit was bright and sunny. The Fort was filled with tourists and each and everyone of them was taking photographs!

The Fort has always been a popular destination among street and architectural photographers. However, what struck me was the number of tourists capturing images, mostly of themselves, and the way they were doing it. At times I wondered whether they were experiencing the place or obsessed about capturing memories. I’m not saying one is right and the other is wrong; I’m not judging people in any way, but what I saw really fascinated me.

So I decided to capture the tourists capturing memories and “selfies”…….

The place the above couple is shooting a “selfie” and the young lady in the below image is dancing is the old ammunition store of the fort. This was the first time I saw a ‘selfie stick’ up close!

The young lady came there with a couple of friends. They were shooting with their own phones. She gave her phone to the gentleman in picture and requested him to capture her images. Then….. she started dancing…..

I didn’t expect her to stretch this much, so I completely missed the focus!!!!!! Apologies for the soft image!

In my defence; I didn’t have the “luxury” of a tiny sensor with an infinite depth of field (pun intended)………….they seemed to be quite pleased with the gentleman’s photos

The “sea wall” of the Fort is said to have been built in 1729 to complete the defences of the city. Initially the seaward side was believed to be impregnable.

After years and years of shooting I’m bit indifferent towards sunsets.However, the sunset at Galle Fort is a spectacular sight! People wait in anticipation to capture it!

Hitting the ground while shooting on streets at times could be quite rewarding. People could walk into your frame and do interesting things without being aware of you being there literally at their feet. A D800 with a 24-70!

Finally the Sun became a red ball of fire and started to go down. Everyone around me started shooting. I had to go with the flow…

And then, this little fella snapped off his Dad’s hand and decided to “photobomb” the Sunset – Thank you little man!

BTW, I’m not too sure which one came first, ‘photobomb’ or ‘selfie’?

The wonderful ability of modern sensors to create signals with minuscule amounts of lights has opened new opportunities for all of us. This was shot with my D800E at ISO 1600 after the sunset; looks like their phone too, is able to shoot low light!

I’m not too sure whether this bunch got anything worth showing in this darkness with that phone, but hey; taking photos is fun!

]]><p>The Galle Fort, which was first built by Portuguese in 1588, then extensively fortified by the Dutch during the 17th century is a historical, archaeological and architectural world heritage monument (Source; Wikipedia). Last week 10 of us, all members of the Round Table Camera Club visited the Galle Fort for an evening of photography, fun <a class="read-more" href="http://www.struckbylight.com/street-photography/galle-fort-tourists-and-street-photography/">Read More</a></p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.struckbylight.com/street-photography/galle-fort-tourists-and-street-photography/">Galle Fort, Tourists and Street Photography</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.struckbylight.com">Struck by Light</a>.</p>http://www.struckbylight.com/street-photography/galle-fort-tourists-and-street-photography/feed/0http://www.struckbylight.com/street-photography/galle-fort-tourists-and-street-photography/Photographing Dolphins in the Wildhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/StruckByLight/~3/UffPRshXx0U/Image PostsStory of the ImageDinil AbeygunawardaneWed, 09 Jul 2014 10:37:47 PDThttp://www.struckbylight.com/?p=2128

The cruises at Mirissa Sri Lanka are mainly for Whale Watching; or at least that is how they are advertised. Over the last decade or so Mirissa earned the reputation of being the best (Blue) Whale Watching destination in the World. However, Blue Whales are, as majestic as they are, shy creatures who hide more than half of their bodies underwater even when they surface to breath.

Dolphins on the other hand are remarkably friendly creatures. More often than not they put up shows for anticipating humans; but here’s the problem. Even when they put up a show, capturing action from jolting boats is not quite easy because of their speed.

However, when they follow boats and jump in air, their leaping pattern becomes somewhat predictable giving us a chance to capture their images. Mirissa is one of the best places for photographing dolphins in the wild.

On this day the sea was rough, the skipper of the boat was a bit of speed merchant, the ride was not that pleasant. All of a sudden a huge pod of Dolphins started following the boats. I tried to count; One, two, three, jump; One, two, three, Jump!

When I saw this mother and calf pair, I zoomed in my 70-200 all the way to 200mm and grabbed a shot; missed it!! Grabbed another one but felt I saw two other shadows. I only saw the other two, landing adults when checking the images at home. I kept on counting, one two, three click….and I got the above image! They didn’t jump in the air again!

]]><p>The cruises at Mirissa Sri Lanka are mainly for Whale Watching; or at least that is how they are advertised. Over the last decade or so Mirissa earned the reputation of being the best (Blue) Whale Watching destination in the World. However, Blue Whales are, as majestic as they are, shy creatures who hide more <a class="read-more" href="http://www.struckbylight.com/image-posts/photographing-dolphins-in-the-wild-mirissa/">Read More</a></p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.struckbylight.com/image-posts/photographing-dolphins-in-the-wild-mirissa/">Photographing Dolphins in the Wild</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.struckbylight.com">Struck by Light</a>.</p>http://www.struckbylight.com/image-posts/photographing-dolphins-in-the-wild-mirissa/feed/0http://www.struckbylight.com/image-posts/photographing-dolphins-in-the-wild-mirissa/Green Bee Eaters for Photographers..?http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/StruckByLight/~3/kWWxdewJHtU/Image PostsStory of the ImageDinil AbeygunawardaneMon, 16 Jun 2014 23:17:57 PDThttp://www.struckbylight.com/?p=2067

Over the last few days I have seen many images of Bee Eaters on Google Plus and Facebook. I myself captured the above image of Green Bee Eaters/ Little Green Bee Eaters (Merops orientalis) recently during a visit to Yala National Park.

These richly coloured, slender bodied, pointed winged, sparrow like birds are quite interesting to all photographers in general, and to those who are trying to get in to bird photography in particular…

To start with these little birds are richly coloured, they are very common and have a high threshold for tolerating approaching humans. More often than not they perch on twigs and branches at eye level or below the eye level giving interesting angles to photograph them. Once they perch on a branch, they zero in on their prey, go for a zig zag flight, catches the insect and come back to the same perch giving brilliant opportunities to focus, compose, follow and capture them from a much closer distance than many other bird species.

If you are a photographer starting out on bird photography they are great little birds to practise many capturing and behavioural skills as a photographer even if you don’t own super telephoto lenses.

]]><p>Over the last few days I have seen many images of Bee Eaters on Google Plus and Facebook. I myself captured the above image of Green Bee Eaters/ Little Green Bee Eaters (Merops orientalis) recently during a visit to Yala National Park. These richly coloured, slender bodied, pointed winged, sparrow like birds are quite interesting <a class="read-more" href="http://www.struckbylight.com/image-posts/green-bee-eaters-for-photographers/">Read More</a></p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.struckbylight.com/image-posts/green-bee-eaters-for-photographers/">Green Bee Eaters for Photographers..?</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.struckbylight.com">Struck by Light</a>.</p>http://www.struckbylight.com/image-posts/green-bee-eaters-for-photographers/feed/2http://www.struckbylight.com/image-posts/green-bee-eaters-for-photographers/Olympus 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 II Vs Panasonic 100-300 f/4.0-5.6 OIShttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/StruckByLight/~3/x1phRqlcUE4/Gear ReviewsOlympusPanasonicDinil AbeygunawardaneMon, 29 Apr 2013 10:01:48 PDThttp://www.struckbylight.com/?p=1305This was a quick and dirty shoot out to determine which of the only two available really long lenses for micro four thirds format was the better performer. After this comparison between the Olympus 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 II and the Panasonic 100-300mm f/4.0-5.6 OIS, I ended up keeping one of the lenses, but it was not the one I intended to keep at the start of the shoot-out.

(If you aren’t interested in the longer version, the conclusions are right at the bottom, scroll down to the bottom of this page)

After playing with my OM-D E-M5 for few days, which I’m bit obsessed about, I started to look around for a long zoom to complement my 12-50mm lens. I browsed the net looking for reviews and read everything I could find. Unfortunately, there weren’t many reviews, and the opinions were divided.

Long story short; I ended up buying both the Olympus and Panasonic and had to figure out which was the one I wanted to keep.

Panasonic 100-300 was the chunkier of the two but was half a stop faster. Olympus 75-300 II on the other hand was slender than the Panasonic and felt bit more balanced on the small OM-D E-M5 body.

olympus 75-300 panasoic 100-300 zoomed

I was almost ready to return the Panasonic; but thought I had to check this out myself.

I thought of using a chess board as the target for the shootout, but decided to go with my daughter’s dollhouse because it was more fun. The dollhouse was lit with two Nikon SB800 speedlights bounced off two reflectors. Exposure was kept constant during the entire shoot by changing the light output of speedlights. Shutter speed was kept at 1/125s for all the frames.

More on using Nikon Speedlights and PocketWizards with Olympus OM-D E-M5 later…..

Camera was mounted on an Arca-Swiss Z1 + Gitzo 3530 and was kept static during the entire shoot.

Focusing was carefully done on the same area of the dollhouse and images were captured at 100mm, 200mm and 300mm focal lengths at f/6.7, f/8 and f/11 for Olympus 75-300 lens, and f/5.6, f/8 and f/11 for Panasonic 100-300 lens respectively.

Images were captured in RAW and was examined at 100% magnification in Aperture, Lightroom and Photoshop.

The following images are cropped jpeg versions at 100% magnification. No sharpening applied.

Widest apertures at the extreme telephoto ends of both lenses were chosen as “wide open apertures” to keep the aperture variable constant through the entire focal length range. Choosing the widest possible apertures at the short ends of both these variable aperture zoom lenses would not have allowed that.

Wide open at 200mm and 300mm

Click on the images for larger versions

Olympus 75-300 f/6.7- 200mm

Olympus 75-300 f/6.7- 200mm

Panasonic 100-300mm f/5.6 200mm

Panasonic 100-300mm f/5.6 200mm

Olympus 75-300mm f/6.7 300mm

Olympus 75-300mm f/6.7 300mm

Panasonic 100-300mm f/5.6 300mm

Panasonic 100-300mm f/5.6 300mm

At f/8

Click on the images for larger versions

Olympus 75-300mm f/8 200mm

Olympus 75-300mm f/8 200mm

Panasonic 100-300mm f/8 200mm

Panasonic 100-300mm f/8 200mm

Olympus 75-300mm f/8 300mm

Olympus 75-300mm f/8 300mm

Panasonic 100-300mm f/8 300mm

Panasonic 100-300mm f/8 300mm

At f/11

Click on the images for larger versions

Olympus 75-300mm f/11 200mm

Olympus 75-300mm f/11 200mm

Panasonic 100-300mm f/11 200mm

Panasonic 100-300mm f/11 200mm

Olympus 75-300mm f/11 300mm

Olympus 75-300mm f/11 300mm

Panasonic 100-300mm f/11 300mm

Panasonic 100-300mm f/11 300mm

Hopefully these crops are big enough for you to make up your minds as to which one was the sharper lens.

Please note that the test shoot was performed only on the two lenses I bought, on my Olympus OM-D E-M5 body. Therefore sample variations were not taken into consideration. Having said that, I didn’t think my Olympus was a lemon!

Here are my conclusions.

Panasonic 100-300mm f/4-5.6 was significantly sharper than the Olympus 75-300 f/4.8-6.7 II lens throughout the entire aperture range – I did not expect this!!

Sharpness differences are quite marked around the 300mm ends of the lenses – at 300mm, my copy of Panasonic 100-300mm f/4-5.6 was significantly sharper than the Olympus 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 lens.

]]><p>This was a quick and dirty shoot out to determine which of the only two available really long lenses for micro four thirds format was the better performer. After this comparison between the Olympus 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 II and the Panasonic 100-300mm f/4.0-5.6 OIS, I ended up keeping one of the lenses, but it was not <a class="read-more" href="http://www.struckbylight.com/gear-reviews/olympus-75-300mm-f4-8-6-7-ii-vs-panasonic-100-300-f4-0-5-6-ois/">Read More</a></p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.struckbylight.com/gear-reviews/olympus-75-300mm-f4-8-6-7-ii-vs-panasonic-100-300-f4-0-5-6-ois/">Olympus 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 II Vs Panasonic 100-300 f/4.0-5.6 OIS</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.struckbylight.com">Struck by Light</a>.</p>http://www.struckbylight.com/gear-reviews/olympus-75-300mm-f4-8-6-7-ii-vs-panasonic-100-300-f4-0-5-6-ois/feed/19http://www.struckbylight.com/gear-reviews/olympus-75-300mm-f4-8-6-7-ii-vs-panasonic-100-300-f4-0-5-6-ois/Depth of Field & Bokeh Control – Olympus OM-D with kit lenshttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/StruckByLight/~3/Moi-D8yuxMU/Science of PhotographyDinil AbeygunawardaneSun, 14 Apr 2013 11:01:56 PDThttp://www.struckbylight.com/?p=1250I have received few questions about depth of field control with micro four thirds cameras after uploading the post about Olympus OM-D EM-5. One concern people expressed when considering a micro four thirds cameras was their smaller sensor size and most of the relatively slower lenses creating a comparatively larger depth of fields and less than pleasing out of focus points (bokeh). While I agree most of those concerns are valid, I think most new photographers keep on forgetting the other methods available to control depth of field.

Word about bokeh

Bokeh is defined as the way a LENS renders an out of focus point of light on the sensor. In other words, bokeh is the quality of an out of focus point on the sensor as rendered by the lens. While the depth of field directly influences the bokeh, it is actually generated by the shape of the area passing light on to the sensor, which is the aperture. Rounder the aperture more pleasing the bokeh is. This is why lenses with 9 blade diaphragms create better bokeh than the lenses with 7 frame diaphragms.

With that out of the way let’s see how we can overcome the smaller sensor size and the slower apertures to create a ‘narrow’ DOF image with a pleasing bokeh by concentrating on other determinants of DOF . If you want a detailed description on DOF control please read this to have better understanding

Reduce camera to subject distance

Zoom in – use the longest possible focal length

Open up your lens as much as possible – you don’t always have to have f/1.2 lenses

Depth of field of any camera & lens combo at a given focal length and aperture can be calculated by using lens formulae, or more easily by using any decent DOF calculator, but nothing beats a real life example.

Here are two quick examples shots illustrating what Olympus OM-D E-M5 quipped with a 12-50 mm f/3.5-6.3 kit lens can achieve depth of field wise. (24mm-100mm equivalent on 35 mm)

Please note that ‘Princes Dora’ is only about 14cm tall. The distance between the toy and the wall of the playhouse, which is the background, is about 45cm. Subject to camera distance is about 100cm (1m) – Focal length 50mm, Aperture f/6.3 – Note how the background it staring to go blurry from just behind the toy.

This time I have moved Dora to a different location to separate the background and moved the camera in while keeping the focal length and aperture unchanged. What you see as background is a window with partially open Venetian blinds. Focus point was on the closest eye. Distance between two eyes is about 1.5cm. Distance from the doll to the window is about 220cm (2.2m). Camera to subject distance is approximately 50cm.

Note how even the left eye which is only 1.5cm away is starting to go out of focus and almost completely blurred background. (Cropped image at the top of the post illustrates this best)

]]><p>I have received few questions about depth of field control with micro four thirds cameras after uploading the post about Olympus OM-D EM-5. One concern people expressed when considering a micro four thirds cameras was their smaller sensor size and most of the relatively slower lenses creating a comparatively larger depth of fields and less <a class="read-more" href="http://www.struckbylight.com/science-of-photography/depth-of-field-bokeh-control-olympus-om-d-with-kit-lens/">Read More</a></p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.struckbylight.com/science-of-photography/depth-of-field-bokeh-control-olympus-om-d-with-kit-lens/">Depth of Field &#038; Bokeh Control &#8211; Olympus OM-D with kit lens</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.struckbylight.com">Struck by Light</a>.</p>http://www.struckbylight.com/science-of-photography/depth-of-field-bokeh-control-olympus-om-d-with-kit-lens/feed/0http://www.struckbylight.com/science-of-photography/depth-of-field-bokeh-control-olympus-om-d-with-kit-lens/Olympus OM-D E-M5 for advanced SLR Usershttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/StruckByLight/~3/pkZBHdt9ghQ/Gear ReviewsOlympusDinil AbeygunawardaneThu, 11 Apr 2013 23:10:20 PDThttp://www.struckbylight.com/?p=1073

This is not an Olympus OM-D E-M5®review. Instead, this is a set of answers to questions I had prior to purchasing this camera as a hard-core SLR shooter.

For years I have been looking for a small camera for family trips and evening walks. I have tried and tested many “advanced” point and shoot cameras but always ended up abandoning them after few hours.

I was skeptic about the OM-D at the start. The reviews were good. Then again, the reviews about the cameras I have tested in the past were good too!!

I finally decided to bite the bullet and purchased an Olympus OM-D E-M5 kit with 12-50mm lens. (Thanks Saul & Camera Electronic for price matching the big auction site!) Over the last few weeks I had time to test the OM-D, and decided to write this to help out those who might have the same questions I had prior to purchasing the camera.

Look and Feel:

Olympus OM-D looks and feels like a small mechanical film SLR from 80’s and early 90’s, and handles like one as well. Nikon shooters who use D700/D800/D3/D4 might find themselves home with this camera due to somewhat similar layout of command dials and controls.

File formats and speed:

This thing shoots uncompressed RAW in Adobe RGB colour space at 9 frames per second; and I didn’t know that before buying!

Focusing:

Auto Focusing is admirably fast! Single and Continues servo auto focus modes with continuous AF tracking is available and works with the maximum frame rate of the camera which is 9 frames per second!

Selectable Focus Points/Areas:

Major part of the Viewfinder is divided in to a 35 square (7 x 5) grid. Each of the small squares works as a selectable focus “point” (area). While these areas are not as small as the focus points of high end Nikons, the mere fact of having 35 of them covering the most part of the viewfinder makes the OM-D much better than some of the low end SLRs.

Focus point selector buttons on the body, corresponding to the size of the camera, are quite small, but similar to those of SLRs. Small size of the selector buttons made selecting the focus points a bit of a fiddly affair at the start, but after 30 minutes of shooting I got quite used to it.

Shutter Speed, Aperture and ISO controls:

Shutter Speed and Aperture are controlled by the two command dials in Manual mode in 1/3 increments. In Shutter and Aperture priority modes, Main (rear) Command dial controls the changeable variable (Aperture or Shutter Speed) while the sub/front command dial controls the exposure compensation. Reversal of dial functions and the rotating directions are configurable just like on high end SLRs.

Once the Super control panel is enabled, ISO control is a single button press away. After playing with the camera for a while I configured the second function button (Fn2), which is placed next to the shutter release button, to control the ISO. Once that was done I was able to change the ISO with my shutter finger and thumb the same way shutter speed and aperture are controlled.

Controlling Shutter speed, Aperture and ISO this way is actually slightly more convenient than doing it on my D700/D800!!!!

Shutter Lag:

Compared to other advanced compacts I have used in the past, OM-D does not have a shutter lag. Compared to my Nikons it is negligible and tolerable. OM-D is very much usable for fast action and I will be testing this out in the next couple of weeks.

Super Control Panel:

(This image is a screen capture from the online OM-D user manual)

This is simply a set of touch controls (yes OM-D LCD is a touch screen) displayed on the LCD by press of a button. Contrary to what I though before buying, this is one of the coolest features I have seen in a camera and I want this on my Nikons!

Exposure Compensation:

In A & S modes sub/front command dial works as the exposure compensation dial in 1/3 increments. This allows on the fly exposure compensation with real time viewfinder feedback with a single dial rotation – beats my Nikons!

Metering Modes:

Metering Modes are quickly selectable via the super control panel. Evaluative, Centre Weighted and a very accurate 2% Spot Metering modes are provided.

MSAP Dial:

Mode selector is a dial like on high end SLRs.

Command Dials and Buttons:

Again similar to a high end SLR, most of the buttons are configurable.

Flash:

A small but very usable detachable flash unit ships with the OM-D E-M5. According to the user manual this flash unit is able to function as a commander unit to trigger remote Olympus flash units via radio frequencies!! I still didn’t have time to check this out

A quickly selectable Rear/2nd Curtain Sync mode is available via the super control panel.

Maximum sync speed is 1/250s

Digital Level:

This might sound lame, but the way this level functions is quite awesome and works in both portrait and landscape orientations.

About the Digital Viewfinder, being Mirrorless and “Pre-Capture Chimping”!

I was a hardcore optical viewfinder fan – and probably still am, but if Nikon announces a mirroless D900/D5 with a digital viewfinder that is at least as good as OM-D E-M5 viewfinder, I will pre order it.

I had to cook up the term “Pre-Capture Chimping” to describe what these mirroless cameras allow us to do with their naked (I meant mirrorless) sensors, because I couldn’t find a better phrase to describe it.

Absence of a mirror allows light to fall directly on to the image capturing sensor, which, in turn generates the image ‘preview’ on the viewfinder/LCD. Reading “preview” information directly off the sensor allows histograms to be created on the fly and to be displayed on the Digital Viewfinder/LCD without having to record that information. There is no parallax error. There is no need to press the shutter to evaluate the histogram or the image (post-capture chimping). All the information we used to gather in the past by “post-capture chimping” can now be gathered prior to capturing.

What blew my mind away was the way changing the exposure and exposure compensation get displayed on the viewfinder as they are changed.

The viewfinder is equipped with a proximity sensor that switches it off as the eye is taken away from the camera.

Battery Life:

Is surprisingly long considering the viewfinder itself is digital.

High ISO

High ISO performance is reasonably good. I haven’t done any direct comparisons, but high ISO performance of OM-D is at least comparable to high ISO performance of D300. Both images above have been shot at ISO 800. Above ISO 800 IQ begins to fall apart!

My final impression:

This one is a keeper! I take more pictures of my wife and kids thanks to this camera. I will probably buy another body and mount a recently announced 75-300mm lens on it for ultimate convenience!

]]><p>This is not an Olympus OM-D E-M5® review. Instead, this is a set of answers to questions I had prior to purchasing this camera as a hard-core SLR shooter. For years I have been looking for a small camera for family trips and evening walks. I have tried and tested many “advanced” point and shoot <a class="read-more" href="http://www.struckbylight.com/gear-reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m5-for-advanced-slr-users/">Read More</a></p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.struckbylight.com/gear-reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m5-for-advanced-slr-users/">Olympus OM-D E-M5 for advanced SLR Users</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.struckbylight.com">Struck by Light</a>.</p>http://www.struckbylight.com/gear-reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m5-for-advanced-slr-users/feed/1http://www.struckbylight.com/gear-reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m5-for-advanced-slr-users/PocketWizard AC3 Zone Controller Vs Nikon Commandershttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/StruckByLight/~3/ipif3lhJvSA/PocketWizardDinil AbeygunawardaneFri, 05 Apr 2013 10:25:07 PDThttp://www.struckbylight.com/?p=1022(This post is exclusively about the usage of Pocktwizard ®AC3 ZoneController unit with Nikon cameras. Above image has been copied from the PocketWizard website)

Few people including a responder to one of my previous blog posts about PocketWizards have asked whether Nikon SU800 or Nikon SB800-910 Speedlights could be used as a commander to change the light output levels when using PocketWizard Mini TT1 or FlexTT5 units with Nikon Cameras.

This is a very short post explaining why I use the AC3 ZoneController instead of my SU800 or other Nikon Speedlights.

As Mark Wallace explains in that video, Nikon SU-800 commander unit, SB800, SB900 & SB910 Speedlights can be used to change the light output values with this system, but the AC3 is the better choice in my opinion due to following reasons.

AC3 provides three mechanical dials to change light output values of each of the channels. These dials only require a single motion to change the values and provide instant visual feedback.
SU-800 on the other hand, could require up to 4 button presses just to select the channel, and then up to 7 button presses to change the light output values for each of those channels depending on the light output values that are being set. As far as I’m concerned this is way too fiddly and consumes too much time when shooting.

Cheaper than any of the other controller units.

Smaller size (way smaller compared to others).

At $80 retail, PocketWizard AC3 ZoneController in my opinion is a necessary investment anyone who uses PocketWizard FlexTT5/MiniTT1 units with Nikon Speedlights has to make even if he or she owns a SU 800.

]]><p>(This post is exclusively about the usage of Pocktwizard ® AC3 ZoneController unit with Nikon cameras. Above image has been copied from the PocketWizard website) Few people including a responder to one of my previous blog posts about PocketWizards have asked whether Nikon SU800 or Nikon SB800-910 Speedlights could be used as a commander to <a class="read-more" href="http://www.struckbylight.com/gear-reviews/pocketwizard/pocketwizard-ac3-zone-controller-vs-nikon-su-800-sb800-910/">Read More</a></p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.struckbylight.com/gear-reviews/pocketwizard/pocketwizard-ac3-zone-controller-vs-nikon-su-800-sb800-910/">PocketWizard AC3 Zone Controller Vs Nikon Commanders</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.struckbylight.com">Struck by Light</a>.</p>http://www.struckbylight.com/gear-reviews/pocketwizard/pocketwizard-ac3-zone-controller-vs-nikon-su-800-sb800-910/feed/1http://www.struckbylight.com/gear-reviews/pocketwizard/pocketwizard-ac3-zone-controller-vs-nikon-su-800-sb800-910/Depth of field Determinantshttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/StruckByLight/~3/l-6rvIhRJHI/Science of PhotographyDinil AbeygunawardaneTue, 11 Sep 2012 09:11:38 PDThttp://www.visiblerange.com/blog/?p=377What determines depth of field? How can one control depth of field (DOF) while shooting in the field or studio?

Though there are many resources on the web listing and explaining the factors that control DOF, most people struggle to control depth of field the moment they run out of “Aperture options”.

What I’m trying to do in this article is to give the reader some practical tips as to how the various factors that determine the depth of field could be controlled in the field to achieve the desired DOF ‘look’.

During the next few paragraphs I will try to explain some of the concepts behind the depth of field. If you are not the geeky type, or not bothered, please feel free to jump straight to the practical tips.

Let’s start by reminding ourselves one of the most important facts: A photograph is made for humans, and whenever we talk about the visual impact of a photograph we talk about how an image is assessed by the human eye – not by machines or mathematical formulae that forget the physics of human vision.

Therefore everything related to depth of field starts with the resolution power of the human eye! Resolution power can be defined as the minimum distance between two points that allow the eye or an optical instrument to clearly identify them as two distinct objects. While this minimal distance is quite important, what really happen is two light rays coming (or get reflected) from those two points get identified as two light rays because they form the minimal required angle for the normal human eye to identify them as two different rays. This angle, which is about one arc minute (one sixtieth of a degree), is defined as the angular resolution of the human eye.

Two points kept 0.1mm (one tenth of a millimetre) apart at 25 cm away from a normal eye can form this critical angle of 1 arc second and hence can appear as two distinct points. If the person looking at our two points takes his or her head back just a few centimetres the angle between the rays that pass through the pupil of the eye drops below the critical number and the two points start to appear as a single point. In other words 0.1mm or smaller circle at a 25 cm distance appears to us as a dot while anything above 0.1mm at a 25cm distance will appear as a small disc/circle. This is the reason why we see stars that are millions of kilometres wide as mere shiny dots in the sky.

What has this got to do with depth of field? Well, everything!…here’s the reason;

When you focus on your subject and take a picture, everything on either side of the plane of focus is going to be slightly out of focus and appear blurry; but if two rays coming from a slightly out of focus point on the final print (or the monitor) are going to create an angle of one arc minute or less on the eye, that point is still going to appear as a point even though it is not on the plane of focus.

Therefore achieving acceptable depth of field is all about making sure that, a point placed away from the plane of focus still appears as a point on the final print, (or on the monitor) at the intended viewing distance.

In other words this simply means, acceptable depth is all about how much an out of focus point object is magnified on the final presented image, and whether we still identify it as a point or something bigger than a point.

Here is one important point that seems to have confused many people who have written articles about depth of field on the web: Depth of field is always dependent on the size of the final image (i.e. magnification)

Say you set your camera lens and the distance to have a particular depth of field on an 8”x10” print. What does this mean? A point object that was not on the plane of focus is going to fall within the critical angle of one arc minute or less when the final 8”x10” print is viewed from the intended distance. Or the point object is going to be less than 0.1mm if the intended viewing distance was 25cm. If somebody enlarges this same image to 16”x 20” our “point” is going to be twice as large and not going to appear as a point if viewed at the previous distance. For the larger image to have the same depth, the viewer has to move back to fulfil the critical angle of one arc minute or we have to come up with a different image of the same subject with a different camera, lens and distance setting to make our point appear as a point on the larger image.

So what determines depth of field?

1. Aperture

Everyone knows how to control this and therefore I’m not going to discuss this any further.

2. Subject Distance

This is probably the most underused depth of field determinant and therefore I will discuss how to use this to get the look and the feel one is after.

If the aperture, focal length and the camera (sensor size) remain the same the effective depth of field increases with distance. So, if you want to more depth of field you move back from your subject with your camera and lens or move in to have a narrower DOF! Easy isn’t it?
What if you want to place someone or something against a background that you want to make extremely blurry?

Get close to your subject as much as you can to minimize the depth of field and separate the background from the subject as far as you can. Most beginners place their subjects very close to backgrounds even when they try to create blurry backgrounds. Placing the background close to the subject maximizes the chances of that background staying within the acceptable depth of field, which is the thing to do to create a sharp background. To make it blurry, background has to be placed away from the subject while you move close to the subject to minimize the DOF.

3. Focal Length

This could be a can of worms!
Does Focal length determine the depth of field?
Yes, for all practical purposes focal length does affect the DOF.

A hypothesis that states the focal length does not change depth of field is getting popularized on the web at the moment of writing this article. A couple of highly reputable websites I personally visit have tried to prove this point by capturing images with different focal lengths, and tied to prove the assumption “if the image size remains the same, then at any given aperture all lenses will give the same depth of field”.

While I really respect those authors, they have made basic errors by changing the subject to camera distance in order to keep the subject size constant. They have conveniently disregarded the all the basic formulae in geometric optics and the fact that focal length does change the magnification.

Longer focal lengths, provided that the aperture, the subject distance and the sensor size are kept unchanged, magnify the resultant image to a greater extent compared to shorter focal lengths. Therefore they magnify “out of focus points” away from the plane of focus more than shorter focal lengths, making them much larger in the final image.

Here are few numbers for sceptics, using a very accurate DOF calculator.

So if you want a narrow depth of field increased the focal length, use a wider lens for more DOF.

Here’s an image shot at 200mm

Same scene at 70mm, only the zoom ring was rotated while keeping the aperture, camera to subject distance and the camera unchanged. Cropped to give it the similar dimensions as the above image. (compare the sharpness of trees and the grass between the bench and the trees.

Camera

NIKON D800

Focal Length

70mm

Aperture

f/5.6

Exposure

1/50s

ISO

100

This is bit of cheating – as pointed out by WWT67 below!Enlargement of the second image contributes to the apparent reduction of DOF

Here are the same two images without cropping

70mm Uncropped

200mm uncropped

4. Sensor size

Larger sensors have less DOF and smaller Sensor have more DOF for a given aperture, subject distance and focal length, simply because smaller sensors create a smaller blur circle or a Circle of Confusion, provided both final images are going to be blown up to have same dimensions.

So if you want to create a creamy background (beautiful bokeh) for your subject;
shoot wide open, get close, use a longer focal length and a larger sensor body. Do the exact opposite if you want a larger DOF.

Just remember that you have four independently controllable (provided you have a two cameras with different sensor sizes and more than a single prime lens) variables to achieve the DOF look you are after.

1. Aperture

2. Your Feet, to move forward or backwards to change the camera to subject distance

3. Different Focal Lengths

4. Sensor Size

Use all of them without solely depending on aperture to control the depth of field.

]]><p>What determines depth of field? How can one control depth of field (DOF) while shooting in the field or studio? Though there are many resources on the web listing and explaining the factors that control DOF, most people struggle to control depth of field the moment they run out of “Aperture options”. What I’m trying <a class="read-more" href="http://www.struckbylight.com/science-of-photography/depth-of-field-determinants/">Read More</a></p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.struckbylight.com/science-of-photography/depth-of-field-determinants/">Depth of field Determinants</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.struckbylight.com">Struck by Light</a>.</p>http://www.struckbylight.com/science-of-photography/depth-of-field-determinants/feed/10http://www.struckbylight.com/science-of-photography/depth-of-field-determinants/